coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Segezha, in the Republic of Karelia.
6.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant and three other men - L., Ls. and Pc. - visited the flat belonging to Bs. They met three women there, D., I. and Kh. All of them gathered in the kitchen and started drinking heavily. At some point, as was established later in the course of the trial, the applicant took D. against her will to another room and raped her.
7.  On 28 September 2004 the applicant was arrested. On 30 September 2004 the Segezha Town Court authorised his detention pending investigation and trial. Mr B., appointed as the applicant’s counsel, and the applicant attended the hearing. Neither of them appealed against the court order of 30 September 2004.
8.  On 1 December 2004 the Segezha Town Court fixed the first trial hearing for 14 December 2004. Ms P., who was an attorney at the time, was appointed to represent the applicant during the trial.
9.  On 1 March 2005 the Segezha Town Court held the last court hearing. According to the applicant, he was not notified in advance of the hearing which prevented him from preparing for it. The court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant and his lawyer were present. The court based its findings, inter alia, on the testimonies provided by D., I., Bs., Kh. and Ls., and on physical and forensic evidence. D. testified that the applicant had pulled her out of the kitchen where they all had been drinking and taken her to another room where he had threatened, slapped and raped her. The other witnesses submitted that they had been drunk at the relevant time and could not provide an accurate account of the events of 27 September 2004. According to the forensic biological report, the traces of body fluids found on D.’s underwear could have belonged to the applicant. The applicant, but not his counsel, appealed.
10.  In the statement of appeal, the applicant claimed that the trial court had failed to study all the materials in the case file; had erroneously dismissed his request for additional forensic expert examinations; had failed to question certain witnesses and had not properly assessed the witnesses’ testimonies. He further alleged that the trial transcript had not been accurate or complete.
11.  On 24 March 2005 the Segezha Town Court informed the applicant and his counsel of the date and time of the appeal hearing.
12.  On 25 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. As it follows from the text of the judgment, the applicant took part in the hearing by video link. Ms P. did not appear. The court proceeded with the hearing in her absence. It heard submissions from the judge rapporteur, the applicant and the prosecutor.
4.  The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1949 and 1965 respectively and live in Vienna, Austria.
5.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants brought an action seeking dissolution of joint ownership of a real estate before the Dunajská Streda District Court (file no. 9C 70/2005).
6.  On 6 September 2006, at its fifth hearing, the District Court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed. The applicants requested the District Court to give a supplementary judgment. On 9 November 2006 the case file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court.
7.  On 20 March 2007 the Regional Court returned the case file to the first-instance court as incomplete. On 11 September 2007 the District Court gave a supplementary judgment and on 11 January 2008 the case file was again submitted to the Regional Court.
8.  In 2008 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings for two months pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings after the defendant had died.
9.  On 31 March 2009 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination.
10.  On 20 August 2010 the applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the District Court.
11.  On 4 October 2010 the District Court approved the friendly settlement of the case reached between the parties. This decision became final on 30 October 2010.
12. On 24 November 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded (case no. I. ÚS 455/2010). It held that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings before the District Court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novi Pazar.
5.  The applicant was employed by “Raška Holding Kompanija A.D. u restrukturiranju”, a socially/State-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 22 December 2004, 5 January 2007, 10 April 2007, and 24 October 2007 the Novi Pazar Municipal Court adopted four judgments in the applicant’s favour according to which the debtor was ordered to pay certain sums.
7.  On 11 February 2005, 5 March 2007, 21 November 2007 and 31 December 2007 respectively, the applicant lodged applications for the enforcement of the above judgments with the Novi Pazar Municipal Court.
8.  On 22 February 2005, 11 September 2007, 22 November 2007 and 3 January 2008 respectively, the court allowed the applications and issued enforcement’s orders.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and habitually resides in Krupina.
6.  On 20, 21 and 22 May 2009 respectively the applicant was arrested, charged and remanded in custody on suspicion of unlawful production, possession and trafficking in drugs within the meaning of Article 172 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code, on grounds that, if left at liberty, he would continue offending.
7.  On 22 July 2009 the applicant requested release, and in support of his request he offered a pledge that he would live in accordance with the law and that he would not interfere with the course of justice.
8.  On 3 August 2009 the Zovlen District Prosecutor found no reasons for releasing the applicant and transmitted his request to the Zvolen District Court (Okresný súd) for a judicial determination with a proposal that the request be dismissed.
9.  On 19 August 2009 the District Court examined the request in chambers (neverejné zasadnutie), following which, on the same day, the request was dismissed. The District Court observed, inter alia, that by a judgment of 23 April 2009 the applicant had been convicted of theft.
10.  Immediately after the decisions of 19 August 2009 had been pronounced, the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), which he later amended with the assistance of his lawyer.
11.  The written version of the District Court’s decision of 19 August 2009 was served on the applicant on 24 September 2009.
12.  On 8 October 2009, sitting in chambers (neverejné zasadnutie), the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, fully endorsing the reasoning of the District Court, adding that, at the same time, the applicant was also being prosecuted for other drug‑related offences.
13.  On 16 October 2009 the written version of the Regional Court’s decision was transmitted to the District Court, which was responsible for ensuring service of that decision on the applicant.
Service was effected on 30 October 2009.
14.  On 11 November 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd), relying on Articles 127 of the Constitution and 5 § 4 of the Convention, challenging the length of the proceedings relating to his request for release, and claiming 1,500 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction. In support of the latter claim, he submitted that, while his request for release had been under examination, he had been in a state of legal uncertainty, which had had a particularly severe effect on his state of mind since he had been deprived of liberty.
15.  On 20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court appointed the applicant a legal-aid lawyer and, on 18 February 2010, it declared the complaint admissible.
16.  On 30 March 2010 the Constitutional Court issued a judgment (nález) finding a violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. At the same time, it awarded him EUR 500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The amount was not explained by any particular reasons.
The written version of the constitutional judgment was served on the applicant on 24 May 2010.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Goyty of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic. She was the mother of Sultan Shotovich Vagapov.
6.  The applicant alleges that from 14 to 16 January 2005 the Russian authorities “mopped up” the village of Zumsoy of the Itum-Kalinskiy District of Chechnya, by first bombarding and then “cleaning it up” by entering houses and abducting some of the residents.
7.  In January 2005 the applicant was invited for an interview in the Territorial Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Goyty village in the Urus‑Martan District of the Chechen Republic. She alleges that she was shown a copy of her son’s identity card and a photograph of a dead person, presumably her son Sultan Shotovich Vagapov. She was also informed that he had been killed during the mopping-up operation in the village of Zumsoy in early 2005. According to the authorities, the applicant’s son was a rebel whose body would be kept at the military base near the village of Khankala.
8.  The applicant was unable to identify her son solely on the basis of the photograph and asked to see the body, without success.
9.  The applicant’s requests to have the body of her son returned to her remained essentially unanswered until 26 April 2005, when the Military Prosecutor, relying on section 16.1 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act and section 14.1 of the Interment and Burial Act, responded that “the bodies of terrorists are not handed over for burial and the place of their burial remains undisclosed”.
10.  The Prosecutor’s Office indicated that her son had offered armed resistance during the operation of 14 January 2005 and was killed. He was found to have been in possession of an automatic rifle, an ammunition belt and a backpack with his personal belongings.
11.  The Government confirmed that a special operation had taken place in the vicinity of the village of Zumsoy between 14 and 16 January 2005, which had resulted in detection of a boot camp belonging to the insurgents. An airstrike and subsequent search of the area lead to the discovery of the corpse of the applicant’s son, Sultan Shotovich Vagapov, along with an automatic rifle and ammunition presumably belonging to him. The body carried an ID card, which enabled swift identification.
12.  The Government submitted that an official inquiry into, among other things, the finding of the corpse of the applicant’s son resulted in a decision of 15 April 2005. It described the collected pieces of evidence, including the oral evidence given by the soldiers who had searched the area after the airstrike and the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, and concluded that his death had resulted from a justified use of lethal force in respect of an armed terrorist.
13.  It appears that the applicant challenged the prosecutor’s letter of 26 April 2005 in court. On 19 December 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court upheld the decision not to return the body of the applicant’s son for burial without reviewing its merits. The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya on 30 May 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Porto.
5.  On 31 May 2005 the applicant started criminal proceedings against several people before the Court of Fafe (domestic proceedings no. 310/05.0TAFAF), accusing them of illegally changing property boundaries.
6.  On 2 October 2006 the Public Prosecutor (Ministério Público) filed the case. The applicant requested a judicial investigation to be opened (abertura de instrução).
7.  On 23 October 2006 the applicant sought to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant to the public prosecutor (assistente).
8.  On 20 June 2008 the applicant claimed damages under civil law against one of the defendants.
9.  On 3 November 2008 the parties reached an agreement on the civil claim. On the same date the criminal proceedings ended with the withdrawal of the complaint by the applicant.
10.  On 22 May 2009 the applicant started enforcement proceedings for the execution of the agreement.
11.  On 20 July 2009 the defendant contested the enforcement. The claim was accepted by the court on 4 December 2009.
12.  On 7 April 2011, after two appeals before the Guimarães court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice, the latter court determined that the enforcement proceedings should continue.
13.  On 9 September 2011 the court ordered the attachment (penhora).
14.  On 30 October 2012 the parties reached an agreement and the enforcement proceedings ended.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Matosinhos.
5.  On 27 October 2004 the Union for Tax Workers (Sindicato dos Trabalhadores dos Impostos) brought an administrative action against the Ministry of Finance on behalf of the applicant and three other employees regarding their early retirement before the Administrative and Fiscal Court of Lisbon (domestic proceedings no. 2594/04.2BELSB).
6.  The Administrative and Fiscal Court of Lisbon dismissed the action on 20 October 2005. The Union appealed to the Central Administrative Court of the South.
7.  On 27 March 2008, the Central Administrative Court of the South reversed the first instance decision and ordered the Ministry of Finance to revoke the contested administrative Act which had not accepted the early retirement and to proceed with a new evaluation of the applicant’s request.
8.  On 29 December 2008 the Union started enforcement proceedings against the Ministry of Finance before the Administrative Court of Lisbon.
9.  On 31 May 2012 the Administrative Court of Lisbon dismissed the action.
4.  The applicant was born in Silves (Portugal) and lives in Bonn (Germany).
5.  On 28 February 2007 the applicant started civil proceedings against two companies before the Court of Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal). The proceedings concerned the occupation of a land which the applicant claimed to be her own (domestic proceedings no. 1908/07.8TBVNG).
6.  The defendants contested the proceedings and the court ordered that the size of the land be analysed by an expertise. These procedural steps ended on 18 December 2007.
7.  In the first trimester of 2008 an attempt of conciliation of the parties took place.
8.  On 18 July 2008 the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings as the property was not registered in the name of the applicant, before the Land Registry Office (Conservatória do Registo Predial).
9.  On 20 January 2010 the court ordered the interruption of the proceedings.
10. On 18 July 2010 the applicant joined an additional supporting document to the proceedings, informing the court of the registration of the land. The judge ordered the proceedings to be resumed.
11.  According to the last information received by the Court on 3 May 2013, the proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Lisbon.
5.  On 26 March 1997 the applicant started enforcement proceedings against a company before the court of Lisbon (domestic proceedings no. 1476/97.7 TVLSB) in order to obtain the payment of 12 740 euros (EUR).
6.  On 24 April 1997 the debtor (executada) opposed the proceedings through the introduction of a motion on that regard (dedução de embargos). The motion was granted and remained valid until 19 September 2006. In the course of the proceedings, procedural steps were taken in the context of the opposition, which had to be suspended twice while waiting for a final decision in other two different proceedings.
7. On 16 September 1997 the court ordered the seizure (penhora) of the debtor’s assets, which took place on 16 January 1998. The applicant opposed it on 22 January 1998. The court ordered the lift of the seizure (levantamento da penhora) on 15 October 1998.
8.  On 18 October 1999 the court ordered the suspension of proceedings because of the inactivity of the parties. The proceedings were suspended until May 2002.
9.  Between June 2002 and 20 June 2012 several procedural steps took place, mostly notifications, provision of information from the parties and court orders (despachos). On 11 March 2003 the court ordered the sale of the business establishment that had previously been seized. Several attempts to sell it were made until 24 May 2012.
10.  On 10 September 2012 due to the inactivity of the parties the court ordered the proceedings to be suspended once again.
11.  According to the last information received by the Court on 11 June 2013, the proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal).
5.  On 11 January 2006 the applicant started eviction proceedings against three tenants before the Court of Matosinhos (domestic proceedings no. 355/06.3TBMTS).
6.  On 23 February 2006 the court ordered their eviction and ordered the tenants to pay 2,170 euros (EUR) for rent arrears.
7.  On 14 September 2006 the applicant started enforcement proceedings.
8.  The following month the court ordered the seizure (penhora) of one third of one of the tenant’s income (executado). The payment of the debt began in December.
9.  Meanwhile, the tenant had asked the court to reduce the deducted amount to one sixth of his salary. The court ordered that reduction on 10 January 2007.
10.  The payments stopped on 7 October 2008, when the tenant became unemployed.
11.  Between October 2008 and September 2009 the enforcement solicitor (solicitador de execução) tried to find attachable assets.
12.  In September 2009 the parties made an agreement according to which the debtor’s wife would continue to pay the arrears in instalments, which she did for one year.
13.  According to the last information received by the Court on 17 April 2013, the proceedings were pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Mem Martins (Portugal).
5.  The applicant is a former employee of G.N., a media company which entailed a collective dismissal in 2009. The applicant was dismissed on 4 May 2009.
6.  On 27 October 2009 he brought an action against the company before the Labour Court of Lisbon (ação especial de impugnação do despedimento colectivo), seeking his reintegration and the payment of extra workload, (domestic proceedings no. 2150/09.9TTLSB-A).
7.  On 16 March 2010 his case was joint to others related to the same collective dismissal.
8.  On 25 October 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the court drawing its attention to the existence of a delay in the proceedings. The court replied on 26 October 2010 saying that some parties in the proceedings still had to be summoned.
9.  Between 4 February 2011 and 9 May 2011 the labour court and the parties in the proceedings appointed experts to give technical assistance in the proceedings, as established by law.
10.  On 6 September 2011 the experts presented their report.
11.  On 31 October 2011 a preliminary hearing took place.
12.  On 15 November 2011 the applicant contested the expert’s report. On 2 December 2012 the court notified the experts and on 9 February 2012 granted more 30 days for the submission of their observations.
13.  On 27 March the applicant was notified of the experts’ reply and submitted his observations on 26 April 2012.
14.  On 11 October 2012 the applicant informed the labour court that he had reached an agreement with the company. On 22 October 2012 the labour court endorsed the agreement.
5.  The applicant is a Romanian citizen of Hungarian origin who was born in 1971 and was detained at the date of lodging the application in Jilava Prison in Bucharest.
6.  On 20 October 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court arrested the applicant on suspicion of aggravated homicide and robbery. On 22 October 2003 the Bucharest County Court granted the prosecutor’s office’s application for pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant, holding that the applicant was suspected of having stabbed a couple to death in order to take 13,000 US Dollars in cash from their house. The county court further held that the applicant represented a danger to the public order in the light of the severity of the crimes he was accused of and the punishment set by law for the respective crimes.
7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was successively extended by court order until he was convicted of aggravated homicide and robbery and sentenced to twenty three years’ imprisonment by a judgment of the Bucharest County Court rendered on 23 September 2005. On 23 December 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the Bucharest County Court’s judgment of 23 September 2005. By a final judgment of 12 May 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the previous judgments.
8.  The reasoning for the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention remained unchanged in each order, namely the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes for which he was on trial and that the severity of the crimes implied that the applicant was a danger to the public order.
9.  The applicant appealed against many of the orders extending his pre‑trial detention, submitting that there was not enough evidence from which to infer a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes, that he had a clean criminal record, that he had been open and honest during the proceedings and that there was no proof that, if set free, he would be a danger to the public order. He also repeatedly complained that his continuing detention without specific reasons based on his particular situation breached his rights under the Convention. His appeals were consistently rejected as without merit, the courts considering that the reasons for his initial pre-trial detention still existed without analysing the applicant’s specific arguments.
10.  In a judgment issued on 30 September 2004 on the applicant’s appeal against the order to extend his pre-trial detention of 14 September 2004, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, quoting the Court’s decisions in the cases of Amuur v. France and Tomasi v. France, held that the lower court had correctly decided that the reasons for the initial pre-trial detention still existed. The court further stated that pre-trial detention was regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure the good progress of trials. Finally, the court decided that the evidence admitted to date in the case allowed the inference that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes and this justified the extension of his detention.